FULL RECOMMENDATION
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACTS, 1946 TO 1990 SECTION 26(1), INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT, 1990 PARTIES : VEOLIA TRANSPORT DUBLIN LIGHT RAIL LTD - AND - SERVICES INDUSTRIAL PROFESSIONAL TECHNICAL UNION DIVISION : Chairman: Mr Duffy Employer Member: Ms Doyle Worker Member: Ms Tanham |
1. Pay / Grade Claim - Traffic Supervisors
BACKGROUND:
2. This case concerns a claim for an increase in basic pay for Traffic Supervisors employed by Veolia Transport Limited. The Union's position is that an increase in basic pay is warranted on the basis of the additional duties being carried out by the Traffic Supervisors and the widening of the skills cap that has developed between grades. Management sought an independent job evaluation in relation to the claim and accepted the evaluators report that an increase in pay was not warranted. In addition management contend that a collective agreement including pay rates is currently in place
The dispute was not resolved at local level and was the subject of a conciliation conference under the auspices of the Labour Relations Commission. As agreement was not reached the matter was referred to the Labour Court on 31st May, 2012 in accordance with Section 26(1) of the Industrial Relations Act, 1990. A Labour Court hearing took place on 9th August. 2012
UNION ARGUMENT:
3 The Union does not accept that the Traffic Supervisor Grade is precluded from making a claim on the basis that a collective agreement is in place. The Traffic Supervisor grade did not accept the Agreement on pay rates and are entitled to raise issues independently of the wider group of staff.
MANAGEMENT ARGUMENT:
4 The Collective Agreement concluded between the parties in in place until 2014. This should provide certainty to the Company in relation to wage costs. It is unreasonable in the circumstances for a specific group of staff to serve a claim outside of the terms of the Agreement.
RECOMMENDATION:
The parties to this dispute concluded a comprehensive collective agreement in December 2009 which remains in force until 30th September 2014. While the Company, by its conduct, appeared to acquiesce in the processing of the claim the fact remains that on a plain reading of the agreement it is clearly precluded.
This Court has consistently held that where parties enter into collective agreements they are bound by the terms of what is agreed for the duration of the agreement. In the conclusion of any employment agreement particular groups or individuals may demur from what is accepted by the majority. However, the very notion of collective bargaining and the collective conduct of industrial relations would be seriously undermined if dissenting minority groups or individuals felt free to independently pursue claims or other issues that were settled by the collective agreement and accepted by the majority of those to whom the agreement relates.
For these reasons the Court believes that the collective agreement should be honoured and that this claim should not be pursued. The Court recommends accordingly.
Signed on behalf of the Labour Court
Kevin Duffy
30th August 2012______________________
AHChairman
NOTE
Enquiries concerning this Recommendation should be addressed to Andrew Heavey, Court Secretary.